Magic wand?
Also, can you picture Trump searching the depths of anything legal or scholarly or remotely requiring reading?
Good one.
UPDATE 04:53 pm:
They don't want to use computers to count votes, but they do want to use them to purge the voting rolls.
UPDATE 02/14/2026:
One of the odd parts of Trump’s post was the statement that “I have searched the depths of legal arguments not yet articulated or vetted on this subject, and will be presenting an irrefutable one in the near future.” What could Trump have been referring to? I originally had no idea, but then a reader wrote to me for comment about an obscure post which seems insane but could explain the big Trump reveal to come:
It’s possible states innocently believe they have unrestrained Constitutional authority to create election rules within their borders.
[...]
A former manager for Marriott Hotels, [John N. Goodman, a retired Hallandale Beach man] spent six weeks at the main branch of the Broward County Library System in Ft. Lauderdale. He was reading a microfilm copy of the original U.S. Constitution, eventually spotting an apparent shadow that turned out to be a significant find.
According to Goodman, a Kentucky native, he stumbled upon wording that wasn’t commonly known, although he speculates Supreme Court justices were familiar with the words because a majority opinion in U.S. Term Limits v Thorton echoed that hallowed language.
In an email this morning, he wrote, it’s “important to point out to your readers that the Constitution on the surface says that the states do have 100% power over elections, but (there was an) obstructed console that was not noticed for many many years because it looks exactly like a faded shadow from the line above it, (so) I decided to go back the next day with a high-powered magnifier to add to the microfilm magnifier in order to still barely make out what it said… it said dictate electoral outcomes unfairly and the states cannot do that and then the actual words dictate electoral outcomes is also in that 1995 Supreme Court case and they elaborate in great detail such as the states powers designed by the framers were meant to be procedural, and their actions cannot compromise integrity of the election (to) favor or disfavor a certain class of candidate, or evade constitutional restraints.”
[...]
Clearly, though, Goodman isn’t a Constitutional scholar, let alone an attorney. However, his research eventually put him in touch with two attorneys who are working with President Trump to clean up our voting system, he says.
Election Law Blog
From out of the woodwork and QAnon they come.
The idea that there is hidden language in the Constitution that vests electoral power in the federal government, in contradiction to the actual vesting in the states subject to congressional override in t elections, is laughable.
It's not laughable. It's batshit crazy.
If this is what the President was referring to as “irrefutable” proof to support an executive order on elections, he’s more gullible and ignorant than I thought.
Well, he is indeed both of those things, but he's also batshit crazy. I do hope he tries this one on publicly, though.
[The lawsuit Goodman cites] does not come close to saying what the substacker implies. Justice Stevens in U.S. Term Limits was commenting on the limited power of states under the Elections Clause to do things like dictate electoral outcomes. That’s surely right. But nothing in the case, or in the Constitution, or in the super-secret part of the Constitution visible only on microfilm in a Florida library, says that the President, acting unilaterally, has the power to make or alter state regulations on the conduct of elections. The elections clause indeed provides that the only body that can override states’ regulations of elections is Congress.
Which is why Democrats MUST retake Congress.
